I understand the harms coal creates. I support moving away from coal as an energy source. But I cannot support Brown Divest Coal. The letter the campaign submitted to The Herald on Monday (“An open letter to President Paxson and the Corporation,” Nov. 4) felt melodramatic, hair-brained and all-around detrimental to their supposed cause. It seems the campaign has no desire to even acknowledge that, unlike tobacco or racial segregation, coal has an inherent value and is a useful commodity. This is not a one-sided case, and such comparisons are unlikely to elicit a positive response.
Take a look, for example, at when former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, of all people, closed the nationalized coal mines of Britain in the 1980s. To this day, former mining communities across Britain remain centers of unemployment and impoverishment. What does Brown Divest Coal propose that we do with all those who rely on coal for their livelihoods? Should we condemn them to misery, just as Baroness Thatcher did?
As another matter of importance, it seems Brown Divest Coal forgets coal is vital to the production of steel. Steel is made with iron ore and carbon. The form of carbon used is usually coke, a bi-product of burning coal. What does Brown Divest Coal propose we do without steel? Should we stop building bridges and buildings?
As I said, I support moving away from coal as an energy source. But the discussion — and it must be a discussion, not a demand — must be well-informed. Sensationalizing the debate, blowing it out of proportion and ignoring critical gray areas does not accomplish anything, let alone tackle the very real issues of climate change and environmental destruction. Change of this magnitude must be gradual, it must be well-informed and it must be based in a process of consensus. As it stands now, Brown Divest Coal seems to prefer to ignore this reality.
Max Guerrera-Sapone ’14
ADVERTISEMENT
